Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's one of the reasons I'm dubious that the committed
>> patch was ready.
> While inventing this GUC, I was thinking more about avoiding
> regressions rather than about unleashing the full power of this
> optimization. But now I see that that wasn't good enough. And it was
> definitely hasty to commit to this shape. I apologize for this.
> Tom, I think you are way more experienced in this codebase than me.
> And, probably more importantly, more experienced in making decisions
> for planner development. If you see some way forward to polish this
> post-commit, Andrei and I are ready to work hard on this with you. If
> you don't see (or don't think that's good), let's revert this.
It wasn't ready to commit, and I think trying to fix it up post
feature freeze isn't appropriate project management. Let's revert
it and work on it more in the v18 time frame.
regards, tom lane